[carlsbadworker]

[quote=temeculaguy]Oh geez, “OK Schools” it’s totally past my bedtime but that one hurts.[/quote]

Well. That just depends on your comparison. 🙂 For us, we will probably go to carlsbad, poway or encinitas districts (most likely poway), if we are doing financially well when our kids go to high school. I have no issues with Temecula’s elementary and middle school. But its highshcool is really not as good as the ones in Poway. Look at how Carmel Valley’s housing market is holding up, then you know what is “Good Schools”. It’s not just 20 minutes drive. It’s parents willing to sink their retirement savings into a hole. That is “Good Schools” to me.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=temeculaguy]Oh geez, “OK Schools” it’s totally past my bedtime but that one hurts.[/quote]

Well. That just depends on your comparison. 🙂 For us, we will probably go to carlsbad, poway or encinitas districts (most likely poway), if we are doing financially well when our kids go to high school. I have no issues with Temecula’s elementary and middle school. But its highshcool is really not as good as the ones in Poway. Look at how Carmel Valley’s housing market is holding up, then you know what is “Good Schools”. It’s not just 20 minutes drive. It’s parents willing to sink their retirement savings into a hole. That is “Good Schools” to me.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=temeculaguy]Oh geez, “OK Schools” it’s totally past my bedtime but that one hurts.[/quote]

Well. That just depends on your comparison. 🙂 For us, we will probably go to carlsbad, poway or encinitas districts (most likely poway), if we are doing financially well when our kids go to high school. I have no issues with Temecula’s elementary and middle school. But its highshcool is really not as good as the ones in Poway. Look at how Carmel Valley’s housing market is holding up, then you know what is “Good Schools”. It’s not just 20 minutes drive. It’s parents willing to sink their retirement savings into a hole. That is “Good Schools” to me.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=temeculaguy]Oh geez, “OK Schools” it’s totally past my bedtime but that one hurts.[/quote]

Well. That just depends on your comparison. 🙂 For us, we will probably go to carlsbad, poway or encinitas districts (most likely poway), if we are doing financially well when our kids go to high school. I have no issues with Temecula’s elementary and middle school. But its highshcool is really not as good as the ones in Poway. Look at how Carmel Valley’s housing market is holding up, then you know what is “Good Schools”. It’s not just 20 minutes drive. It’s parents willing to sink their retirement savings into a hole. That is “Good Schools” to me.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=temeculaguy]Oh geez, “OK Schools” it’s totally past my bedtime but that one hurts.[/quote]

Well. That just depends on your comparison. 🙂 For us, we will probably go to carlsbad, poway or encinitas districts (most likely poway), if we are doing financially well when our kids go to high school. I have no issues with Temecula’s elementary and middle school. But its highshcool is really not as good as the ones in Poway. Look at how Carmel Valley’s housing market is holding up, then you know what is “Good Schools”. It’s not just 20 minutes drive. It’s parents willing to sink their retirement savings into a hole. That is “Good Schools” to me.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]Just offering another perspective re: not putting all your eggs in one basket :=}[/quote]

I agree with this kind of thinking.

But I am wondering if the real estate experts on this site could tell us what is the best reliable indicator of the future home price appreciation?

I mean, anyone knows that cheaper is better, buying at 100x rent is better than 125x rent, but that’s from the perspective of investment safety (helped by the rental yield). If we don’t rely on the fuzzy term such as “location”, what is the best indicator for price appreciation? Job growth? Active/Sale ratio? Depressed seller ratio?

Has no one digged up the data and did any research on this?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]Just offering another perspective re: not putting all your eggs in one basket :=}[/quote]

I agree with this kind of thinking.

But I am wondering if the real estate experts on this site could tell us what is the best reliable indicator of the future home price appreciation?

I mean, anyone knows that cheaper is better, buying at 100x rent is better than 125x rent, but that’s from the perspective of investment safety (helped by the rental yield). If we don’t rely on the fuzzy term such as “location”, what is the best indicator for price appreciation? Job growth? Active/Sale ratio? Depressed seller ratio?

Has no one digged up the data and did any research on this?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]Just offering another perspective re: not putting all your eggs in one basket :=}[/quote]

I agree with this kind of thinking.

But I am wondering if the real estate experts on this site could tell us what is the best reliable indicator of the future home price appreciation?

I mean, anyone knows that cheaper is better, buying at 100x rent is better than 125x rent, but that’s from the perspective of investment safety (helped by the rental yield). If we don’t rely on the fuzzy term such as “location”, what is the best indicator for price appreciation? Job growth? Active/Sale ratio? Depressed seller ratio?

Has no one digged up the data and did any research on this?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]Just offering another perspective re: not putting all your eggs in one basket :=}[/quote]

I agree with this kind of thinking.

But I am wondering if the real estate experts on this site could tell us what is the best reliable indicator of the future home price appreciation?

I mean, anyone knows that cheaper is better, buying at 100x rent is better than 125x rent, but that’s from the perspective of investment safety (helped by the rental yield). If we don’t rely on the fuzzy term such as “location”, what is the best indicator for price appreciation? Job growth? Active/Sale ratio? Depressed seller ratio?

Has no one digged up the data and did any research on this?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]Just offering another perspective re: not putting all your eggs in one basket :=}[/quote]

I agree with this kind of thinking.

But I am wondering if the real estate experts on this site could tell us what is the best reliable indicator of the future home price appreciation?

I mean, anyone knows that cheaper is better, buying at 100x rent is better than 125x rent, but that’s from the perspective of investment safety (helped by the rental yield). If we don’t rely on the fuzzy term such as “location”, what is the best indicator for price appreciation? Job growth? Active/Sale ratio? Depressed seller ratio?

Has no one digged up the data and did any research on this?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration. [/quote]

I can address this one. I think the notion that house price appreciation is a road to retirement is an illusion. Yes, if you are very lucky, and you bought before an area’s economy starts to boom, then it migth be true, but it’s not true in most general cases. So the only roads to retirements are:
1. Have more income, which depends on your talent.
2. Have less expenses, which is controllable. Housing expense is the biggest expense item in most families. Therefore, by reducing that expense (including associated property taxes) through living in area like Temecula, you will have more savings for true investments. Businesses, stocks, bonds, rental properties…I don’t care. All these generate residue income and produce cashflow in the long term. It’s better than spending into a more expensive houses (which corresponds to a higher rental costs even if you can make it cash flow). Remember the goal is to reduce costs. I don’t understand how people who live in expensive neighborhood can claim that they are getting riches by having more equity in their houses. Again, unless you are very lucky that the house price in your town is going to appreciate much faster. The price you have to pay is going to be higher than its rental equivalent each month. And its rental equivalent is higher that low-cost areas, therefore so is your eventual shelter expenses. And that money can get better appreication elsewhere than equity in the house.
But, wait a minute, I assumed that the house price appreciated the same in all areas. If as realtors always say, location, location, location. Maybe better neighborhoods can get better price appreciation in the long run?? I agree with this possibility. Therefore, Temecula is a reasonable hedge against that scenario. It has OK to good schools, relatively wealthy population and more professionals that have a chance to move up in the corporate ladder in the future.
It can’t be a proven road to retirement (nothing concerning the future can be proved), but it is a good and educated guess.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration. [/quote]

I can address this one. I think the notion that house price appreciation is a road to retirement is an illusion. Yes, if you are very lucky, and you bought before an area’s economy starts to boom, then it migth be true, but it’s not true in most general cases. So the only roads to retirements are:
1. Have more income, which depends on your talent.
2. Have less expenses, which is controllable. Housing expense is the biggest expense item in most families. Therefore, by reducing that expense (including associated property taxes) through living in area like Temecula, you will have more savings for true investments. Businesses, stocks, bonds, rental properties…I don’t care. All these generate residue income and produce cashflow in the long term. It’s better than spending into a more expensive houses (which corresponds to a higher rental costs even if you can make it cash flow). Remember the goal is to reduce costs. I don’t understand how people who live in expensive neighborhood can claim that they are getting riches by having more equity in their houses. Again, unless you are very lucky that the house price in your town is going to appreciate much faster. The price you have to pay is going to be higher than its rental equivalent each month. And its rental equivalent is higher that low-cost areas, therefore so is your eventual shelter expenses. And that money can get better appreication elsewhere than equity in the house.
But, wait a minute, I assumed that the house price appreciated the same in all areas. If as realtors always say, location, location, location. Maybe better neighborhoods can get better price appreciation in the long run?? I agree with this possibility. Therefore, Temecula is a reasonable hedge against that scenario. It has OK to good schools, relatively wealthy population and more professionals that have a chance to move up in the corporate ladder in the future.
It can’t be a proven road to retirement (nothing concerning the future can be proved), but it is a good and educated guess.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration. [/quote]

I can address this one. I think the notion that house price appreciation is a road to retirement is an illusion. Yes, if you are very lucky, and you bought before an area’s economy starts to boom, then it migth be true, but it’s not true in most general cases. So the only roads to retirements are:
1. Have more income, which depends on your talent.
2. Have less expenses, which is controllable. Housing expense is the biggest expense item in most families. Therefore, by reducing that expense (including associated property taxes) through living in area like Temecula, you will have more savings for true investments. Businesses, stocks, bonds, rental properties…I don’t care. All these generate residue income and produce cashflow in the long term. It’s better than spending into a more expensive houses (which corresponds to a higher rental costs even if you can make it cash flow). Remember the goal is to reduce costs. I don’t understand how people who live in expensive neighborhood can claim that they are getting riches by having more equity in their houses. Again, unless you are very lucky that the house price in your town is going to appreciate much faster. The price you have to pay is going to be higher than its rental equivalent each month. And its rental equivalent is higher that low-cost areas, therefore so is your eventual shelter expenses. And that money can get better appreication elsewhere than equity in the house.
But, wait a minute, I assumed that the house price appreciated the same in all areas. If as realtors always say, location, location, location. Maybe better neighborhoods can get better price appreciation in the long run?? I agree with this possibility. Therefore, Temecula is a reasonable hedge against that scenario. It has OK to good schools, relatively wealthy population and more professionals that have a chance to move up in the corporate ladder in the future.
It can’t be a proven road to retirement (nothing concerning the future can be proved), but it is a good and educated guess.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration. [/quote]

I can address this one. I think the notion that house price appreciation is a road to retirement is an illusion. Yes, if you are very lucky, and you bought before an area’s economy starts to boom, then it migth be true, but it’s not true in most general cases. So the only roads to retirements are:
1. Have more income, which depends on your talent.
2. Have less expenses, which is controllable. Housing expense is the biggest expense item in most families. Therefore, by reducing that expense (including associated property taxes) through living in area like Temecula, you will have more savings for true investments. Businesses, stocks, bonds, rental properties…I don’t care. All these generate residue income and produce cashflow in the long term. It’s better than spending into a more expensive houses (which corresponds to a higher rental costs even if you can make it cash flow). Remember the goal is to reduce costs. I don’t understand how people who live in expensive neighborhood can claim that they are getting riches by having more equity in their houses. Again, unless you are very lucky that the house price in your town is going to appreciate much faster. The price you have to pay is going to be higher than its rental equivalent each month. And its rental equivalent is higher that low-cost areas, therefore so is your eventual shelter expenses. And that money can get better appreication elsewhere than equity in the house.
But, wait a minute, I assumed that the house price appreciated the same in all areas. If as realtors always say, location, location, location. Maybe better neighborhoods can get better price appreciation in the long run?? I agree with this possibility. Therefore, Temecula is a reasonable hedge against that scenario. It has OK to good schools, relatively wealthy population and more professionals that have a chance to move up in the corporate ladder in the future.
It can’t be a proven road to retirement (nothing concerning the future can be proved), but it is a good and educated guess.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration. [/quote]

I can address this one. I think the notion that house price appreciation is a road to retirement is an illusion. Yes, if you are very lucky, and you bought before an area’s economy starts to boom, then it migth be true, but it’s not true in most general cases. So the only roads to retirements are:
1. Have more income, which depends on your talent.
2. Have less expenses, which is controllable. Housing expense is the biggest expense item in most families. Therefore, by reducing that expense (including associated property taxes) through living in area like Temecula, you will have more savings for true investments. Businesses, stocks, bonds, rental properties…I don’t care. All these generate residue income and produce cashflow in the long term. It’s better than spending into a more expensive houses (which corresponds to a higher rental costs even if you can make it cash flow). Remember the goal is to reduce costs. I don’t understand how people who live in expensive neighborhood can claim that they are getting riches by having more equity in their houses. Again, unless you are very lucky that the house price in your town is going to appreciate much faster. The price you have to pay is going to be higher than its rental equivalent each month. And its rental equivalent is higher that low-cost areas, therefore so is your eventual shelter expenses. And that money can get better appreication elsewhere than equity in the house.
But, wait a minute, I assumed that the house price appreciated the same in all areas. If as realtors always say, location, location, location. Maybe better neighborhoods can get better price appreciation in the long run?? I agree with this possibility. Therefore, Temecula is a reasonable hedge against that scenario. It has OK to good schools, relatively wealthy population and more professionals that have a chance to move up in the corporate ladder in the future.
It can’t be a proven road to retirement (nothing concerning the future can be proved), but it is a good and educated guess.

[Author]

Posts